Ched Evans found "not guilty"

[Herd]

I didnt say I knew the case ,in order to pass judgement Id have to read the court transcripts and I dont have the inclination so I'l leave that to those who did !
I also understand that he may be a rapist even though he cant be convicted because the burden of proof "beyond a resonable doubt " is a cornerstone on which british Justice was built and is always the prosecutions remit to do ,and rightly so.
Im not saying I know the ins and outs of the case because I dont but neither does anybody !

[DB10GOONER]

One other thing; I do agree with whomever said above that the accused should get anonymity until they are convicted.

I also think that Evans's family/friends who publicly named the alleged victim on social media should get punished by the courts.

[NickF]

One other thing; I do agree with whomever said above that the accused should get anonymity until they are convicted.

I also think that Evans's family/friends who publicly named the alleged victim on social media should get punished by the courts.

Agree it is wrong but if 500 people then tweet the name are you going to prosecute all of them?

[SPUDMASHER]

One other thing; I do agree with whomever said above that the accused should get anonymity until they are convicted.

I also think that Evans's family/friends who publicly named the alleged victim on social media should get punished by the courts.

I agree, they should get in trouble; but unless there was a court order in place to prevent it then I doubt you could do much. It isn't the same as a court injunction such as,ahem, some sheep shagging Welsh footballing wankstain (Nobody will guess it from that decsription ) had in place. The standard ban is on reporting and is enshrined in law by statute. It doesn't extend to individuals outside the press or those immediately involved in the case. His girlfriends parents are actually no more legally involved than their postman!

Anonymity should be granted to everyone until convicted regardless of the offence they are alleged to have committed.

[northbank123]

Good points DB10. Had he chatted her up and the issue of drunken capacity to consent arose, it would have been far more difficult to realistically secure a conviction. Hence why Clayton McDonald was acquitted. In reality he would never have been prosecuted if it wasn't for his texts to Evans and subsequent events.

Evans' deceitful and deplorable conduct in the lead-up lowered the bar for the prosecution case significantly.

[AkneyGooner]

As said rape is a disgusting crime and rapists frankly dont forget punished enough for it but the sad fact of this case is that only those who were there really know what went on . . . . and they were all pissed too !
Now if everyone who had sex whilst pissed on a saturday night was put in court then we couldnt build enough jails cos it happens a lot !
There has been a number of cases brought on the basis that because the woman was pissed she couldnt then freely give her consent and thats
a dangerous area to go to as you basically will need to abstain from having sex with anyone who isnt sober or risk a rape charge .
That Ched isnt a nice person and a sexual predator is given here but bieng a *word censored* doesnt make you a rapist !
Since I wasnt there though how can I or anyone else Judge,except of course the jury who were sworn in .
Normally I wouldnt count a victims sexuaL History but if she was in the habit of threesomes on a Saturday night its petrtinent to a Jury !

Pretty much how I feel about this case

Some people are getting on their moral high horse on this and are playing word games with their "not guilty doesn't make him innocent" I'm sorry but as much as it might piss everyone off, not guilty in legal terms does mean exactly that.

Actually, augie, it doesn't. Not in legal terms, in lay mans terms maybe, but not legal terms. If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they have to deliver a verdict of "not guilty". This does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This is explained very clearly here;

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/ ... vans-case/

On the issue of "consent", from this article;

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... in-retrial

"In court, Evans admitted that he lied to get the key for the hotel room and did not speak to the woman before, during or after sex. He left via a fire exit."

He did not speak to her before sticking his cock in her? How did he think she was giving her consent? By telepathy? FFS.

I agree with your point, but Consent does not really have to be verbally expressed, it can be implied by body language/actions of person in a way, but I think what is key is that she was awake/in control enough to tell him to **** off if she was not interested, which she can't remember if she was.

to not even speak a word to each other (when they just met) the whole time makes me think she was asleep or right out of it though!

I agree also that both should not be named until the verdict but, did he not get found guilty so would have been named anyway, or do we wait the course of all appeals before naming?

[OneBardGooner]

He's been found innocent you may have other ideas but let's be fucking careful what we write please, we don't want this place shut down

One bard I've pm'd you

Might be best to lock but I'll leave it for now

The PM still hasn't arrived.

Is it being delivered by Sanogo ?

[MrT]

As said rape is a disgusting crime and rapists frankly dont forget punished enough for it but the sad fact of this case is that only those who were there really know what went on . . . . and they were all pissed too !
Now if everyone who had sex whilst pissed on a saturday night was put in court then we couldnt build enough jails cos it happens a lot !
There has been a number of cases brought on the basis that because the woman was pissed she couldnt then freely give her consent and thats
a dangerous area to go to as you basically will need to abstain from having sex with anyone who isnt sober or risk a rape charge .
That Ched isnt a nice person and a sexual predator is given here but bieng a *word censored* doesnt make you a rapist !
Since I wasnt there though how can I or anyone else Judge,except of course the jury who were sworn in .
Normally I wouldnt count a victims sexuaL History but if she was in the habit of threesomes on a Saturday night its petrtinent to a Jury !

Pretty much how I feel about this case

Some people are getting on their moral high horse on this and are playing word games with their "not guilty doesn't make him innocent" I'm sorry but as much as it might piss everyone off, not guilty in legal terms does mean exactly that. Obviously if she was passed out drunk then he is as guilty as sin, but otherwise being drunk does not make any guy who shags a woman into a rapist.
Reading things like showing her no respect or having no respect for women is at face value ridiculous - as I said above, unless people know exactly how drunk she was, how can they make a judgement call on his actions ? Where is her respect for herself ?
People look at this case and are making judgements largely on the fact that he and his mate shagged her........but if his mate shagged her when she was that drunk, why was he found not guilty ? Any one of you guys might pick up a woman who is drunk on a weekend night so you tell me......would you feel comfortable shagging her now ? If there is a knock at the door the following morning, will you be concerned that it is the old bill coming to lock you up ? At face value, shagging a drunk woman is now a dangerous thing to do and is opening up a real legal minefield - is there a definitive point in which shagging a woman is breaking the law ? Are you supposed to ask how many drinks the girl has before you get jiggy with her ?

As I continually say, if the girl was passed out drunk then it is rape and he should be punished - however if he was just shagging a woman whose inhibitions were cast aside due to a combination of being with professional footballers and consuming excess alcohol, then he isn't a rapist and probably isn't even wrong for shagging her

Spot on. Is it really surprising though? This country is full of emasculated beta males who believe women are delicate little snowflakes and she just tripped, fell, and landed on a couple of footballer's dicks in a cheap hotel room. As is evidenced by many comments here, her degenerate slut behaviour is rarely mentioned.

Shagging a drunk women is not worth it at all. If you really have to then record it all, either audio or video to prove it was consensual from start to finish. Might sound extreme but it could save you from a life of misery and a potential jail term. Men have to prove they didn't rape said individual, innocence is not assumed any more. Read a story recently about a young lad who killed himself due to the shame of a false rape allegation. Protect yourself at all times fellas, the legal system/police are not your friends. This doesn't apply to most on here who are in dead end sexless relationships and struggle to understand the meaning of consent.

[MrT]

As said rape is a disgusting crime and rapists frankly dont forget punished enough for it but the sad fact of this case is that only those who were there really know what went on . . . . and they were all pissed too !
Now if everyone who had sex whilst pissed on a saturday night was put in court then we couldnt build enough jails cos it happens a lot !
There has been a number of cases brought on the basis that because the woman was pissed she couldnt then freely give her consent and thats
a dangerous area to go to as you basically will need to abstain from having sex with anyone who isnt sober or risk a rape charge .
That Ched isnt a nice person and a sexual predator is given here but bieng a *word censored* doesnt make you a rapist !
Since I wasnt there though how can I or anyone else Judge,except of course the jury who were sworn in .
Normally I wouldnt count a victims sexuaL History but if she was in the habit of threesomes on a Saturday night its petrtinent to a Jury !

Pretty much how I feel about this case

Some people are getting on their moral high horse on this and are playing word games with their "not guilty doesn't make him innocent" I'm sorry but as much as it might piss everyone off, not guilty in legal terms does mean exactly that.

Actually, augie, it doesn't. Not in legal terms, in lay mans terms maybe, but not legal terms. If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they have to deliver a verdict of "not guilty". This does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This is explained very clearly here;

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/ ... vans-case/

On the issue of "consent", from this article;

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... in-retrial

"In court, Evans admitted that he lied to get the key for the hotel room and did not speak to the woman before, during or after sex. He left via a fire exit."

He did not speak to her before sticking his cock in her? How did he think she was giving her consent? By telepathy? FFS.

I agree with your point, but Consent does not really have to be verbally expressed, it can be implied by body language/actions of person in a way, but I think what is key is that she was awake/in control enough to tell him to **** off if she was not interested, which she can't remember if she was.

to not even speak a word to each other (when they just met) the whole time makes me think she was asleep or right out of it though!

I agree also that both should not be named until the verdict but, did he not get found guilty so would have been named anyway, or do we wait the course of all appeals before naming?

Amazing people think consent means you need to sign a written contract before, during and after.

[northbank123]

Actually you're right Mr T it's a wonder that there's still a sufficiently large male population to maintain civilisation given the regularity with which police are hauling blokes off the street and locking them up indefinitely because it turns out that woman that seduced them 6 years ago had a glass of wine beforehand.

[MrT]

Actually you're right Mr T it's a wonder that there's still a sufficiently large male population to maintain civilisation given the regularity with which police are hauling blokes off the street and locking them up indefinitely because it turns out that woman that seduced them 6 years ago had a glass of wine beforehand.

Aww bless, you tried!

[flash gunner]

He's been found innocent you may have other ideas but let's be fucking careful what we write please, we don't want this place shut down

One bard I've pm'd you

Might be best to lock but I'll leave it for now

The PM still hasn't arrived.

Is it being delivered by Sanogo ?

Sent again mate

[DB10GOONER]

As said rape is a disgusting crime and rapists frankly dont forget punished enough for it but the sad fact of this case is that only those who were there really know what went on . . . . and they were all pissed too !
Now if everyone who had sex whilst pissed on a saturday night was put in court then we couldnt build enough jails cos it happens a lot !
There has been a number of cases brought on the basis that because the woman was pissed she couldnt then freely give her consent and thats
a dangerous area to go to as you basically will need to abstain from having sex with anyone who isnt sober or risk a rape charge .
That Ched isnt a nice person and a sexual predator is given here but bieng a *word censored* doesnt make you a rapist !
Since I wasnt there though how can I or anyone else Judge,except of course the jury who were sworn in .
Normally I wouldnt count a victims sexuaL History but if she was in the habit of threesomes on a Saturday night its petrtinent to a Jury !

Pretty much how I feel about this case

Some people are getting on their moral high horse on this and are playing word games with their "not guilty doesn't make him innocent" I'm sorry but as much as it might piss everyone off, not guilty in legal terms does mean exactly that. Obviously if she was passed out drunk then he is as guilty as sin, but otherwise being drunk does not make any guy who shags a woman into a rapist.
Reading things like showing her no respect or having no respect for women is at face value ridiculous - as I said above, unless people know exactly how drunk she was, how can they make a judgement call on his actions ? Where is her respect for herself ?
People look at this case and are making judgements largely on the fact that he and his mate shagged her........but if his mate shagged her when she was that drunk, why was he found not guilty ? Any one of you guys might pick up a woman who is drunk on a weekend night so you tell me......would you feel comfortable shagging her now ? If there is a knock at the door the following morning, will you be concerned that it is the old bill coming to lock you up ? At face value, shagging a drunk woman is now a dangerous thing to do and is opening up a real legal minefield - is there a definitive point in which shagging a woman is breaking the law ? Are you supposed to ask how many drinks the girl has before you get jiggy with her ?

As I continually say, if the girl was passed out drunk then it is rape and he should be punished - however if he was just shagging a woman whose inhibitions were cast aside due to a combination of being with professional footballers and consuming excess alcohol, then he isn't a rapist and probably isn't even wrong for shagging her

Spot on. Is it really surprising though? This country is full of emasculated beta males who believe women are delicate little snowflakes and she just tripped, fell, and landed on a couple of footballer's dicks in a cheap hotel room. As is evidenced by many comments here, her degenerate slut behaviour is rarely mentioned.

Shagging a drunk women is not worth it at all. If you really have to then record it all, either audio or video to prove it was consensual from start to finish. Might sound extreme but it could save you from a life of misery and a potential jail term. Men have to prove they didn't rape said individual, innocence is not assumed any more. Read a story recently about a young lad who killed himself due to the shame of a false rape allegation. Protect yourself at all times fellas, the legal system/police are not your friends. This doesn't apply to most on here who are in dead end sexless relationships and struggle to understand the meaning of consent.

You are not the brightest, are you?

[DB10GOONER]

Actually you're right Mr T it's a wonder that there's still a sufficiently large male population to maintain civilisation given the regularity with which police are hauling blokes off the street and locking them up indefinitely because it turns out that woman that seduced them 6 years ago had a glass of wine beforehand.

I was wondering why the streets of your major cities are almost empty of blokes. Now I know.

[officepest]

Evans, and his mate, roll up to a hotel room and fuck an unconscious girl without so much as a hello and then disappear sharpish.

It may not be rape (as was found in court), but it's pretty fucking low-bottom scumbaggery at best.

I find it astonishing that anyone thinks Evans' behaviour was anything other than contemptible.